XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/12/2025 6:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/12/25 7:40 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/12/2025 4:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/12/25 5:36 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/12/2025 4:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/12/25 5:07 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/12/2025 3:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/12/25 4:33 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 12/12/2025 3:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 12/12/25 3:55 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 12/12/2025 1:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/12/25 2:35 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> The input to a Turing machine halt decider has always   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> been a finite string that SPECIFIES (in its encoding)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> an exact sequence of steps. The decider only has what   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> this finite string encodes as its only basis.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> The string does not specify the steps, it specifies the   
   >>>>>>>>>>> algorthm used to generate those steps.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Counter-factual.   
   >>>>>>>>>> The string encoding directly specifies   
   >>>>>>>>>> an exact sequence of steps within the   
   >>>>>>>>>> model of computation.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Where do you get that? More of your zero-principle logic?   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> If it was, how can you say your C code is a valid input? that   
   >>>>>>>>> doesn't specify what steps happen, it specifies the logic used   
   >>>>>>>>> to generate the steps.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> It is a string of bytes that specifies an   
   >>>>>>>> exact sequence of steps within a model of   
   >>>>>>>> computation.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> HOW??? Your input isn't that, so I guess you are just admitting   
   >>>>>>> you are just a liar.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> If it is, then how is C code or x86 instrutions code a valid   
   >>>>>>> input. Those are not a "exact sequence of steps" that the machine   
   >>>>>>> goes through.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> You must keep forgetting the details that   
   >>>>>> I have already provided.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Then remind me, because it seems you are just showing that you   
   >>>>> logic is broken.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If you can't remind me then it seems that the   
   >>>> issue is you own lack of attention span. Feel   
   >>>> free to go back through what I said. If you   
   >>>> can't even go back through what I said then it   
   >>>> is definitely your own attention span.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> But I DO repeat my reasoning,   
   >> You cannot even look up and see what I said.   
   >>   
   >   
   > But that doesn't answer the question,   
      
      
   I am not going to infinitely answer the same   
   question. I asked you to go look up what I   
   already said. I am going to assume that you   
   cannot do that, not merely that you will not   
   do that.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"   
   reliably computable.   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation   
   for correct reasoning.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)